Put to death in some States in the US...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

In the US, isn't it more costly to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Furthermore, reductions in cost for the death penalty usually involve reducing appeal time/attempts, so it would likely increase unjust executions, no?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the US, isn't it more costly to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Furthermore, reductions in cost for the death penalty usually involve reducing appeal time/attempts, so it would likely increase unjust executions, no?

I can't see how that is true. I mean, with the death penalty the costs would be appeals, lawyers, and some imprisonment, plus the costs of the drugs or the electricity. In the case of a life sentence, you're also going to try the appeals, have the lawyers, and you will be imprisoned for a much longer time. Can anyone show me a cost breakdown to prove that the death penalty costs more?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A quick search yielded this which is full of what looks like half-baked studies. However, the North Carolina study looks legit (actually comparing murder cases, with death penalty vs. non-death penalty murder cases, unlike some of the other studies). According to that study, it costs North Carolina roughly $200k for processing a murder case with the death penalty available than one without it, and that's including cost of imprisonment differences.

You must also not forget that those on death row are often imprisoned for an extended period of time due to appeals and other judicial proceedings.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm against the death penalty, but I'm also against allowing lifers to sit around casually wallowing in their own guilt, that is, if they have any. I think the state needs to put these men into better use, a very regimented Gulag type system that involves hard... very hard labor doing menial tasks such as state ran Farms, and for those who refuse to work, they can go sit in Maximum security and be fed one measly meal a day, for a week. After each offense, their time in lock down increases, so for the first offense you get one week, the second you get two, third...three etc.

The benefit to such a system is that you get something back, Prisons are after all supposed to be a place where you repay your debts to society, not sit around, play cards and pump iron...

[Crazed Rabbit]

One thing to note about the death penalty; if it is abolished, how do you punish a man already in prison for life who murders another inmate or guard?

And on the dangers of eyewitness evidence:

Throughout the ordeal, she scrupulously studied her attacker, determined to memorize every detail of his face and voice so that, if she survived, she could help the police catch him. Thompson soon identified Ronald Cotton in a photo lineup. When she—after some hesitation—again picked Cotton out of a physical lineup a few days later, a detective told her she'd picked the same person in the photo lineup.

But in this case Thompson got it wrong, although Cotton served 10 years before DNA evidence exonerated him and decisively implicated another man, Bobby Poole. The curious part of the story is that despite Thompson's determination to memorize every detail, when she first saw Poole in court she was certain she had never seen him before.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

One thing to note about the death penalty; if it is abolished, how do you punish a man already in prison for life who murders another inmate or guard?

What do we do currently if someone on death row does so?

[Hooahguy]

if thats the case, dont we move him to a higher-security prison or something?

[Crazed Rabbit]

What do we do currently if someone on death row does so?

I don't know. I'd imagine the trial and any possible conviction and death sentence would be after their current sentence.

if thats the case, dont we move him to a higher-security prison or something?

I suppose, if they weren't there already. Or move them to solitary confinement maybe.

But that can't stop them.

CR

[tibilicus]

Any one heard about that Fritzl guys punishment?

For raping his own daughter the vile little rat will get a nice cell at a Psychiatric ward with access to a colour t.v, his own garden terrace and even his own computer. Now whilst I'm against the death penalty I'm not against long, long, long incarceration in places void of all luxuries where a person can truly reflect on the crimes they have committed. I don't understand why this monster deserves his deluxe bed sit. I personally feel that a lot of countries could do with reforms in the justice system. It either seems to be that countries are at the end of the harsh scale or are at the end of the 10 years free holiday scale..

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He's probably rather disturbed. Furthermore, his "luxury" is probably significantly less than you are making it out to be.

Unless you would choose prison, with all its Epicurian excess.

[Major Robert Dump]

In the US, isn't it more costly to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Furthermore, reductions in cost for the death penalty usually involve reducing appeal time/attempts, so it would likely increase unjust executions, no?

Death Penalty costs more. It may not be a lot more, but it costs more. This of course is assuming the lifer doesnt end up with some form of degenerative illness that must be treated for 20 years, but in virtually all cases, they would treat it with the death row inmate as well.

Life in prison: an appeal or two, and room and board for the rest of the life.

Death Sentence:
-Capitol Punishment cases require a special prosecutor and, in the case of an appointed attorney, a special defense attorney. Special=more expensive.
-Seperate living quarters. This seclusion means more guards are needed as this inmate is not being housed with the general population.
-Multiple, multiple appeals, and during these appeals the inmate must be shackled, escorted, and transported to the appeals location, and given special sleeping quarters in the case of overnight stay. And once again, an attorney from the prosecution will be present as will the defense attorney. And keep in mind that courts get backlogged, case get delayed due to overruns and illness, so going to the appeals hearing is not always an in-and-out process and can actually take severla more days than intended. Sometimes, the appeal is rescheduled, the inmate sent home, wash rinse repeat.

All of the above costs time, money and manpower. A lot more than spending 55 dollars a day to house a lifer.

[HoreTore]

One thing to note about the death penalty; if it is abolished, how do you punish a man already in prison for life who murders another inmate or guard?

Life in Prison? Almost as bad as the death penalty....

A maximum of 21 years in prison is more than enough. By the end of that, your life is already gone anyway, no need to remain in jail. I'm very happy that the maximum sentence is written in our constitution.

[Kralizec]

Anybody heard about that Iraqi guy who recently got his third death sentence?

Anyway, punishment is at its core about two things:
-protecting society from the convicted
-retribution

The death penalty does those two marvelously. "Reforming" someone while they're in jail is a nice thought but doesn't work in the vast majority of cases and the death penalty doesn't have that problem.

I think death would be a fitting punishment for someone who has committed more than one murder, but I'm against the death penalty for practical reasons that others have already covered.

A maximum of 21 years in prison is more than enough. By the end of that, your life is already gone anyway, no need to remain in jail. I'm very happy that the maximum sentence is written in our constitution.

I disagree. Life imprisonment should always be an option.

The Dutch system might be slightly flawed- as far as I know, we're the only ones who don't do interim evaluations or whatever for those who've been convicted for life. The only possible way to get out alive (besides health reasons) is a pardon from the crown. I'm not sure if I have a problem with it, though.

[rasoforos]

I think death sentence should be used for every country. At least for serial killers who doesn't have mental damage.

I think this statement is self-contradictory...

...Why would someone go kill scores of people who did nothing to him if he is not mentally insane?




I think that the case Jag brought forward is an absolute argument against the death penalty. Nothing more should be said. We, of course, as a habit will debate this argument to death. Any oppinion, no matter how strong, crumbles after 2 dozen people have expressed their opinion.

Also, I believe that judges and jury should be held accountable in such cases. If you destroyed a person's life by wrongfully convicting him you should go be a guest at the big house yourself.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think this statement is self-contradictory...

...Why would someone go kill scores of people who did nothing to him if he is not mentally insane?

Is your contention then that all multiple killers are insane? Does that mean, since they bear no responsibility for their actions, they should all be exonerated after a short spell in psychiatric care?

Also, I believe that judges and jury should be held accountable in such cases. If you destroyed a person's life by wrongfully convicting him you should go be a guest at the big house yourself.

Not very practical or remotely just. Judges and juries are there to consider the evidence - they cannot guarantee that all the evidence has been presented, or is indeed available at the time. Your proposed sanction would best be aimed at the prosecution and police, surely? And if then granted, should not defence counsel then be imprisoned as soon as someone is rightfully convicted?

[Beefy187]

I think this statement is self-contradictory...

...Why would someone go kill scores of people who did nothing to him if he is not mentally insane?




I think that the case Jag brought forward is an absolute argument against the death penalty. Nothing more should be said. We, of course, as a habit will debate this argument to death. Any oppinion, no matter how strong, crumbles after 2 dozen people have expressed their opinion.

Also, I believe that judges and jury should be held accountable in such cases. If you destroyed a person's life by wrongfully convicting him you should go be a guest at the big house yourself.

What I meant by mental damage is like person who is clearly mad like a mental disorder.

If the person could do logical thinking like planning how he is going to kill and who he is going to kill etc, then he isn't mentally damaged but his simply dangerous to be kept alive.

If that makes sense.

[rasoforos]

If the person could do logical thinking like planning how he is going to kill and who he is going to kill etc, then he isn't mentally damaged but his simply dangerous to be kept alive.

It does make sense but I would still have to disagree.

Not all mentally ill people are hunting imaginary butterflies in a world of their own. Many mentally ill people have perfectly good and intact planing and managing abilities.

For example I once saw the house of someone who thought he was the Emperor of Byzantium. He would produce amazingly good edicts and laws and publish them in boards on the walls external walls of his house. The texts were well thought of, nice and coherent; he wasn't

[Banquo's Ghost]

You are an aristocrat BG - with an aristocrat's view on the world. Much as I think you are a decent person, you represent and reflect humanity's desire for oligarchy.

That may well be, but the principle I rather clumsily illustrated remains. The desire for incoherent vengeance is another desire of humanity and an ugly one - a desire that needs to be controlled and expressed judicially through calm reflection and intellectual analysis.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice. To move your suggestion further, I have no doubt that if a government wished to raise a lot of revenue, they would be able to sell tickets to the Great Unwashed for attendance at public executions, ideally of the traditional sorts like hanging, drawing and quartering. No doubt the majority would also be keen for half-time events at soccer matches to include the torture of terrorist suspects accused of being in the possession of a beard after the hours of darkness.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

[Strike For The South]

Do you have titles? Or are you one of those uncouth nouveau riche we've been getting allot of lately?

[HoreTore]

I disagree. Life imprisonment should always be an option.

It is an option here too. It's just that we've defined "life" as meaning 21 years in jail...

[rory_20_uk]

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

To use the death penalty as the wishes of the mob is to use a very broad brush. I would agree in the case of impromptu public stoning, a lynch mob or a "kangaroo court". But a trial that may take months of deliberation is neither immediate or simplistic.

Democracy is based on appealing to the will of the masses.

[Idaho]

That may well be, but the principle I rather clumsily illustrated remains. The desire for incoherent vengeance is another desire of humanity and an ugly one - a desire that needs to be controlled and expressed judicially through calm reflection and intellectual analysis.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice. To move your suggestion further, I have no doubt that if a government wished to raise a lot of revenue, they would be able to sell tickets to the Great Unwashed for attendance at public executions, ideally of the traditional sorts like hanging, drawing and quartering. No doubt the majority would also be keen for half-time events at soccer matches to include the torture of terrorist suspects accused of being in the possession of a beard after the hours of darkness.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

The death penalty is less a demand from the 'great unwashed' as you rather unplesantly quote, but much more to do with the propertied classes being in terror of those same people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The death penalty is less a demand from the 'great unwashed' as you rather unplesantly quote, but much more to do with the propertied classes being in terror of those same people.

Now you are confusing me.

I thought your position was that the death penalty should be introduced because the majority wanted it. Are you now claiming it is a tool of the elite to suppress the working class from revolution?

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the thing is the majority is the Elites plus the Middle Classes. Please note these two terms are used pajoritively.

These two evil groups are persecuting the Proletariat by demanding the death sentence for not using a saucer with a cup for tea, not having an estate in the country or not even having a school tie.

As they are Evil, and Good always prevails they are hence scared of the minority.

[rasoforos]

Is your contention then that all multiple killers are insane? Does that mean, since they bear no responsibility for their actions, they should all be exonerated after a short spell in psychiatric care?




Not very practical or remotely just. Judges and juries are there to consider the evidence - they cannot guarantee that all the evidence has been presented, or is indeed available at the time. Your proposed sanction would best be aimed at the prosecution and police, surely? And if then granted, should not defence counsel then be imprisoned as soon as someone is rightfully convicted?

Perhaps we define 'serial killer' differently.

My definition would not apply to someone who kills people in a series of armed robberies for example. It would apply to someone who just murders people for no apparent reason. The first one benefits from his action, the latter does not and in my books is mentally insane (acting against his best interests and for no altruistic cause)

I dont see why holding the jury accountable is unjust. They are there to review the evidence and their validity. As you very well say evidence might be lacking. Consequently, with inadequate evidence, the logical thing is to acquit or err on the side of caution. A jury that decides to put a person to death on inadequate evidence makes an informed decision and should be held accountable for their actions. Of course if let us say evidence was tampered or mishandled by police then the jury was mislead and the onus should go to the law enforcement.

[KukriKhan]

I'm part of the Great Unwashed. Wait: as of 2004 I 'own' 1/7th of an acre of California dirt. Maybe I'm now part of the bourgeoisie. And didn't Idaho buy a house a couple years back, too?

Anyway, I oppose capital punishment on principle: it ain't right for an individual, or group of individuals, to end the life of another. I oppose War and Murder on the same grounds. But, since we still have War, we also have to have Cap'l Pun'mt too, for when somebody does it (war) wrong. Likewise, since we keep murdering each other, we need to have CP as a last resort.

The trick is in accurately assessing guilt when murder has happened. We've been shown to've made mistakes before, so it makes sense to me to still have it on the books, but not used except in cases of absolute certainty (un-coerced confession + 3-4 eyewitnesses + DNA). And those rare occasions should be abhorrent to all but the victim's families.

[HoreTore]

I'm part of the Great Unwashed. Wait: as of 2004 I 'own' 1/7th of an acre of California dirt. Maybe I'm now part of the bourgeoisie. And didn't Idaho buy a house a couple years back, too?

Nah, they are the traders who live in the cities.

You're a peasant. Go find yourself some nice Maoists...

[rory_20_uk]

Juries do not decide on a sentence.
Unless one of the lawyers points out holes in the argument, how are they supposed to know? They made a decision on uninformed evidence.

If anyone is guilty, it is the defense lawyer for doing a poor job.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps we define 'serial killer' differently.

My definition would not apply to someone who kills people in a series of armed robberies for example. It would apply to someone who just murders people for no apparent reason. The first one benefits from his action, the latter does not and in my books is mentally insane (acting against his best interests and for no altruistic cause)

Fair enough.

I dont see why holding the jury accountable is unjust. They are there to review the evidence and their validity. As you very well say evidence might be lacking. Consequently, with inadequate evidence, the logical thing is to acquit or err on the side of caution. A jury that decides to put a person to death on inadequate evidence makes an informed decision and should be held accountable for their actions. Of course if let us say evidence was tampered or mishandled by police then the jury was mislead and the onus should go to the law enforcement.

Perhaps it is different in Greece, but here juries are composed of citizens selected for that purpose. To hold them accountable for the quality of evidence would, at a stroke, remove the jury system because no-one would agree to serve in fear of that penalty.

A jury cannot be held accountable for inadequate evidence, for they have no responsibilty for its gathering or quality. If as you say, they should acquit if they cannot be certain, then I suggest all cases would result in acquittal because there is no way a jury can guarantee the accuracy of the evidence presented - they are not scientists, or lawyers, or witnesses.

Finally, in the case presented in the OP, no-one had even considered DNA as a possible corroboration to confessional evidence because the technique did not exist. Your view therefore, is that the jury should be punished for not taking into account the findings from a technique that was not invented for another ten years?

Not exactly what I would call just. Would you?

[Kralizec]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That may well be, but the principle I rather clumsily illustrated remains. The desire for incoherent vengeance is another desire of humanity and an ugly one - a desire that needs to be controlled and expressed judicially through calm reflection and intellectual analysis.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice. To move your suggestion further, I have no doubt that if a government wished to raise a lot of revenue, they would be able to sell tickets to the Great Unwashed for attendance at public executions, ideally of the traditional sorts like hanging, drawing and quartering. No doubt the majority would also be keen for half-time events at soccer matches to include the torture of terrorist suspects accused of being in the possession of a beard after the hours of darkness.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

I suppose that if there was to be a referendum on person X being executed or not, I could see how it would be an expression of mob instinct...

Judges are supposed to make verdicts in specific cases and do it by applying general rules laid out by the legislator. If through democratic process the most heinous crimes become punishable by death, it's still the judge who has to decide wether it should be applied or not.